TRAINING BRANCH
| Training Programs |
| Training
Materials & Other Publications |
| Death
Penalty & Habeas |
| Supreme
Court Advocacy Program |
| Online
Internet Resources |
| Employment |
 |
Federal Defender Websites (Click on pull-down window) |
|
Click
map to view larger version |
HOT TOPICS
- Sentencing Resource Page
- Crack Cocaine Sentencing
- The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
- Immigration Raids
- Supreme Court Update
- CJA Panel Information: Forms, Guidelines, Rates & More
For
information on other topics, go to our
Training Materials & Other Publications
page.
| Upcoming Training Events |
|
PANEL
ATTORNEY PROGRAMS COMBINED
FEDERAL DEFENDER STAFF and PRIVATE CJA PRACTITIONERS PROGRAMS FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAMS
ORIENTATION SEMINAR FOR ASSISTANT FEDERAL DEFENDERS
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR TRIAL SKILLS TRAINING
|
November 3, 2009
Amendments to Sentencing Guidelines Take Effect
The United States Sentencing Commission has published its 2009 Guidelines Manual. Effective November 1, 2009, several amendments to the sentencing guidelines and commentary took effect. The amendments include a change in the definition of "victim" in §2B1.1 to include certain persons who suffer non pecuniary harm; an increase to the base offense level cap in hydrocodone cases; creation of a new guideline in response to the Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008, which criminalizes the operation of certain submersibles or semi submersibles; a change in the definition of "counterfeiting" so that bleached notes are included within it; creation of a new enhancement at §2L1.1 where a defendant is a leader or organizer and commits a harboring offense in furtherance of prostitution; and clarification that the undue influence enhancement at §2A3.2 and §2G1.3 applies to attempted conduct, but does not apply where the only "minor" involved is an undercover officer.For more information on the impact of these amendments, as well as practice pointers, see the amendment summary and analysis prepared by the National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel.
October 13, 2009
Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Scope of Section 1346 “Honest Services” Law; Pre-Trial Publicity Prejudice; Standard of Review of Ex Post Facto Clause Violation; Equitable Tolling of AEDPA
The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in three cases of interest to federal criminal defense practitioners. In Skilling v. United States (08-1394), the Court will review the conviction on fraud charges of Enron executive Jeffrey K. Skilling. The two issues before the Court are: (1) whether the federal “honest services” fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, requires the government to prove that the defendant’s conduct was intended to achieve “private gain” rather than to advance the employer’s interests, and, if not, whether § 1346 is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) whether the government must rebut the presumption of jury prejudice, which arose because of pretrial publicity and community impact of the alleged conduct, and, if so, whether the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no juror was actually prejudiced. Skilling is one of three “honest services” cases scheduled to be heard this term.In United States v. Marcus (08-1341), the Court will review the Second Circuit’s decision to adopt as the appropriate standard for plain-error review of an alleged ex post facto violation whether there is any possibility that the defendant could have been convicted based exclusively on conduct that took place before the enactment of the statute in question. The defendant in the case had been convicted under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act. The Second Circuit overturned the conviction out of concern that the jury had reached its guilty verdict in part on conduct that had allegedly occurred before the statute had taken effect.
Holland v. Florida (09-5327), a death penalty case, raises the issue of whether gross negligence of counsel, resulting in the late filing of the defendant’s habeas petition, can justify tolling the statute of limitations under AEDPA.
For more detailed summaries of the above cases, see ScotusBlog. For information on all pending Supreme Court cases raising issues of criminal law and procedure see Paul Rashkind’s Supreme Court Update.
October 1, 2009
Supreme Court to Rule on SORNA, Mandatory Minimums Under 18 U.S.C. 924, Gun Control and Terrorism Law; Will Hear Habeas Cases Raising Miranda and Jury Venire Issues
The Supreme Court granted certiorari yesterday in six cases raising issues related to criminal law and procedure. In Carr v. United States (08-1301), the Court will address the retroactive application to certain defendants of 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register under SORNA. The question presented is whether it is a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause for the U.S. Attorney General to apply the law retroactively to an individual whose underlying crime occurred before the law was enacted by Congress. In United States v. O’Brien and Burgess (08-1569) the Court will address whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) to a 30-year minimum when the firearm is a machinegun is an element of the offense that must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or instead a sentencing factor that may be found by a judge by the preponderance of the evidence.Additional certiorari grants of interest to criminal defense practitioners appear below. For information on all pending Supreme Court cases raising issues of criminal law and procedure see Paul Rashkind’s Supreme Court Update.
Berghuis, Warden v. Smith (08-1402): Addressing whether the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when it rejected a state prisoner’s Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim and whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the comparative-disparity test (for evaluating the difference between the numbers of African Americans in the community as compared to the venires).
Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins (08-1470): Addressing whether the Sixth Circuit expanded the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them.
McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago (08-1521): Addressing whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.
Holder, Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law Project (08-1498) and Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder (09-89): Addressing whether 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1), which prohibits the knowing provision of “any *** service, *** training, [or] expert advice or assistance,” to a designated foreign terrorist organization, is unconstitutionally vague; and whether the criminal prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) on the provision of “expert advice or assistance” “derived from scientific [or] technical … knowledge” and “personnel” are unconstitutional with respect to speech that furthers only lawful, nonviolent activities of proscribed organizations.